binman

I don't think its fair to accuse me of attacking him. Saying i wonder a little about his attitude is hardly an attack. His attitude was terrific early on, which i was why i have a query about it now.

I'm not sure about that. He was very poor and Roos gave him a chance to show what he had by one not starting him as a sub and two not subbing him when he deserved to be the one off the ground. Also i saw a bit of bad body language, lack of effort and not playing the team game in one contest on the wing that worries me TBH. I wonder a little about his attitude.

This does not surprise me at all. It is why calls for Bail to be dropped or god forbid traded are ridiculous. Runs hard both ways, presents, always puts in and above all plays his role/does his job. I Tyson noted in his interview that Roos had reemphasised the need to play the assigned role in the review of this weeks appalling game so one can only assume he is pretty annoyed players have not been doing so. By the by i wondered why Roos didn't put Nev onto Bewick - he killed us. I don't think he had his best coaching game.

Thanks Saty. I wish we had some gee whiz filter that selectively ignored. Annoying to have to click view any way on your training reports.By the by i happened to have the chance of speaking to Nev after the demons game and complimented him on his game. As you have said he is very focused on playing his role and doing his job - he knew exactly how many kicks his opponent, Green, had. I asked about the hit he got from Merret and said i was amazed he didn't get 50 as he clunked the mark. He was also amazed but didn't know that it had been paid a free kick (shocking decision btw that cost us a shot on goal). Said that he was pretty sore - how was he at training?

Further to the final comments in my post above i thought these comments from Jack Trengove posted today on the MFC site were interesting: “The last four games are really important to us and we want to finish off this season really well and take some confidence into pre-season and into the years to come.” Switch on, not off.

I totally agree tanking in isolation isn't the cause of our malaise. I, like many other DL posters it would seem, believe our position is in large part a manifestation of the overall dysfunction at board, admin and football dept levels that has been a feature of the club for much, much longer than the specter of tanking has been about. To an extent it is a moot point whether you agree with Baghdad Bob, Hazy or WJ about where blame lies or which particular board is most responsible, most would agree we have been dysfunctional for a long time (though hopefully that has changed/is changing). However i would argue that yes other clubs tanked (for want of a better word) and yes we were dreadfully unlucky to be the only club to be pinged (and isn't it amazing how clearly a line has been drawn by the AFL since then that basically gives amnesty to all the other tankers) but it was the general dysfunction that meant we got pinged and that it was our heads on the block. The whole episode just shone a light on our internal dramas and inability to get things right off field. A couple of other thing about Roos' quotes about tanking. First i am not convinced that it was wrong to raise (or respond) to the issue - the fact that he discussed it on 360 and in Tuesdays presser suggests to me they were considered comments, they was purposeful and he had his reasons. Without knowing those reasons i can't fully judge how wise or other wise they might be. I'm prepared to cut him some slack and put my confidence in the fact he knows what he is doing. The second thing is that whilst he said 'tanking has put the club where it is' (which has been widely reported and also criticised here on DL) and that he believed many of the players from that era still at the club were feeling the impact he also said that he didn't blame the Demons because the incentive of priority draft picks was there. "The carrot was there and we all know that teams were playing for ladder positions in reverse order," he said. "Half of the footy world thought it was good management, including myself, but having taken over the club now that was involved in it, I can look back now and say it won't happen again." Perhaps his objective is to reprogram the player's minds and ensure they are focused on getting as much as possible from the last month of footy rather than let it peter out as has been the case for the last few years. Perhaps he tried internal messaging (and they didn't get it) but has judged that public comments are now more effective in terms of achieving this objective - keeping in mind how insipid our last quarter was in terms of applying pressure. He does note that AFL clubs in general had learnt from the Demons, and teams out of finals contention now looked at the last matches of the season as a pre-season for the following year. "Teams really want to set good habits and want for their young guys to come in and play well, so I think this year you're going to have a really fierce competition to the end, which is terrific."

Bob i agree with most of your points but i'm not sure that i agree that Roos was out of line with his comments. I agree somewhat with TimD that there may well have been a element of him being genuinely furious and less able to be measured but I suspect that Caro may have been on the money on Footy classified when she said that Roos knew what he was doing and his comments were purposeful. He's effectively put players on notice but perhaps he has also decided it is time to play bad cop. In terms of Caro's article, it was fine however i think she is overstating how much Roos was suggesting tanking was the issue. My reaction to his comments in the presser was that he was more referring to the impact of a sustained period of being woeful and down the bottom of the ladder (in short, losing) as being the cause of their inability to think they are a chance of winning.

No problems with that article. Big problem with the article in todays Hun by Yobbo (which i can't find online)

I disagree. Like or loathe them Denham and Wilson are reasonable journalists. Yobbo gives gutter journalism a bad name. And who says he was joking about tanking? Just read the article and he is not joking at all. Basically suggests both GWS and the MFC are likely to tank in our game in 2 weeks - suggests keeping an eye on the pressure index. Wilson takes a completely different tack here

great post. Two things though. Its not true we have had no luck. We've had heaps of bad luck. To add to your list there was the death of our talisman, Brendan Schwab, getting pinged for tanking where several other clubs didn't and neeld (self inflicted but still). Oh and Salem apparently has done his quad.

Surely they would have played him then

Yes you are a bad supported but if you think they are overs then you are a good gambler

that's not funny. At all. Jokes about family violence never are. Please delete

I agree WJ, but gee i'd love to see him to run out against GWS and show us something to sustain us over the pre season

The work place violence or the player being late?

Not necessarily. Jack was by all accounts hanging around the club and i could see him as 16 year old getting all fired up about lack of effort. Joke btw

Surely they would consider it. After all they are selling hope. With Roos extending it would add another shot of hop to have Hoges come out kick a lazy half dozen and get subbed off late in the third with Salem replacing him and snagging a couple of ice man goals

One Tasmanian?

It won't if we trade for them (as opposed to securing a FA). It beggars belief really that the club allowed our compo for Rivers t be reduced because we brought Byrnes in as a FA EDIT: didn't see the post above

Yep, that's how i see it. I'd go as far saying as they won't push too hard for him and their offer will be good but not near what he can get on the open market, even though we have the coin and the salary cap space. We will be able to use that extra pick, salary cap space and coin to push hard for the quality half back we so desperately need.

To (badly) paraphrase Mick Dundee: 'that's not a succession plan, THIS is a succession plan'

I'm not sure about that. I wonder if getting a second top ten pick might be more important than keeping frawley. We need mids and a gun kick at half back way more than a kpd. Perhaps he wants to let prospective trades he sticking around as they weigh up their options

not shocked or even surprised. Pleased though. The timing is interesting. Thought will have gone into when they chose to announce it. I suspect they want to create a good vibe in the playing group to maximise the chances of winning sat night

Could Mitch be the fabled successor? Part of honorable tradition of big ruck types captain coaching the dees stretching back to to big Carl

Is second lady a euphemism?